Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T16:15:50.442Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Spray Volume, Formulation, Ammonium Sulfate, and Nozzle Effects on Glyphosate Efficacy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Bradford K. Ramsdale ,
Calvin G. Messersmith  and
John D. Nalewaja
Bradford K. Ramsdale*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105
Calvin G. Messersmith
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105
John D. Nalewaja
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: brad.ramsdale@ndsu.nodak.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted to examine the influence of spray volume on glyphosate efficacy in relation to glyphosate rate, formulation, ammonium sulfate addition, and type of sprayer nozzle. Using several grass species it was shown that glyphosate efficacy increased as spray volume decreased from 190 to 23 L/ha. To obtain equal efficacy, glyphosate rates can be reduced by at least one-third when glyphosate is applied in 23 or 47 L/ha spray volume compared with 94 or 190 L/ha. The amount of surfactant in formulated glyphosate at 35 to 140 g ae/ha rates was insufficient when glyphosate was applied in 94 or 190 L/ha spray volumes. Additional surfactant enhanced glyphosate efficacy at these rates when applied in 94 or 190 L/ha spray volume, but efficacy was still less than when applied in 23 or 47 L/ha without additional surfactant. Thus, low spray volumes maximized glyphosate efficacy primarily through high herbicide concentration in the spray deposit and reduced salts from the carrier to antagonize efficacy. Glyphosate applied in 23 L/ha spray volume with drift-reducing nozzles provided control equal to that provided by glyphosate applied with standard flat-fan nozzles. Grass control also was equal from several glyphosate formulations that contained surfactants, regardless of spray volume.

Keywords

GlyphosateAdjuvantapplication methodsspray depositspray dropletAMS, ammonium sulfateDAT, days after treatmentNIS, nonionic surfactant
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , September 2003 , pp. 589 - 598
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Ambach, R. M. and Ashford, R. 1982. Effects of variations in drop makeup on the phytotoxicity of glyphosate. Weed Sci. 30:221–224.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Burnside, O. C. 1983. Effect of spray components on glyphosate toxicity to annual grasses. Weed Sci. 31:124–130.Google Scholar
[CAST] Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. 2002. Comparative Environmental Impacts of Biotechnology-Derived and Traditional Soybean, Corn, and Cotton Crops. Ames, IA: Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. 189 p.Google Scholar
Cranmer, J. R. and Linscott, D. L. 1990. Droplet makeup and the effect on phytotoxicity of glyphosate in velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 38:406–410.Google Scholar
Cranmer, J. R. and Linscott, D. L. 1991. Effects of droplet composition on glyphosate absorption and translocation in velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 39:251–254.Google Scholar
de Ruiter, H., Uffing, A. J. M., and Meinen, E. 1996. Influence of surfactants and ammonium sulfate on glyphosate phytotoxicity to quackgrass (Elytrigia repens). Weed Technol. 10:803–808.Google Scholar
Green, J. M. and Foy, C. L. 2000. Adjuvants: test design, interpretation, and presentation of results. Weed Technol. 14:819–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, T. N. 1981. Effects of diluent volumes and surfactant on the phytotoxicity of glyphosate to bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon). Weed Sci. 29:79–83.Google Scholar
MacIsaac, S. A., Paul, R. N., and Devine, M. D. 1991. A scanning electron microscope study of glyphosate deposits in relation to foliar uptake. Pestic. Sci. 31:53–64.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D. and Matysiak, R. 1991. Salt antagonism of glyphosate. Weed Sci. 39:622–628.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D. and Matysiak, R. 1993. Optimizing adjuvants to overcome glyphosate antagonistic salts. Weed Technol. 7:337–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D. and Matysiak, R. 1995. Ethoxylated linear alcohol surfactants affect glyphosate and fluazifop absorption and efficacy. in Gaskin, R. E., ed. Fourth International Symposium on Adjuvants for Agrochemicals. Rotura, New Zealand: New Zealand Forest Research Institute Bulletin No. 193. Pp. 291–296.Google Scholar
Nalewaja, J. D., Matysiak, R., and Freeman, T. P. 1992. Spray droplet residual of glyphosate in various carriers. Weed Sci. 40:576–589.Google Scholar
Ramsdale, B. K. and Messersmith, C. G. 2001. Drift-reducing nozzle effects on herbicide performance. Weed Technol. 15:453–460.Google Scholar
Robinove, C. J., Langford, R. H., and Brookhart, J. W. 1958. Saline-Water Resources of North Dakota. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1408. U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Sandberg, C. L., Meggitt, W. F., and Penner, D. 1978. Effect of diluent volume and calcium on glyphosate efficacy. Weed Sci. 26:476–479.Google Scholar
Stahlman, P. W. and Phillips, W. M. 1979. Effects of water quality and spray volume on glyphosate phytotoxicity. Weed Sci. 27:38–41.Google Scholar
Zollinger, R. 2002. North Dakota Weed Control Guide. Fargo, ND: North Dakota State University Extension Service Circ. W-253. 132 p.Google Scholar